header-logo header-logo

28 June 2024 / Tom McNeill
Issue: 8077 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Environment , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Assuming guilt?

179423
Removing legal protections for company bosses won’t clean up our waterways, argues Tom McNeill

Labour plans to stop sewage polluting our rivers and seas include the eye-catching proposal: ‘Water bosses who oversee repeated law-breaking will face criminal charges.’ What does this mean? The law already contains provisions which allow for company officers to be prosecuted if environmental offences committed by the company are proved to have been committed with their ‘consent’, ‘connivance’, or ‘attributable to their neglect’. Those found guilty risk going to jail.

Guilt can be assumed

Comments from the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, suggest that the intention is changing the law to remove the requirement to prove such individual fault by senior managers when there is repeated serious offending by the company. When it comes to water company bosses, the idea appears to be that guilt can be assumed.

On 9 May, Mr Reed told the Commons: ‘The environmental regulator has today condemned the disgusting state of our waterways caused by the Conservatives letting water companies pump them full of raw sewage.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll